Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Not Chaotic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Though politicians and scholars harshly criticize President Donald Trump’s foreign policy as chaotic, his policymaking seems to be based upon a sound and consistent political approach, contrary to that of his predecessor in the White House. Several decisions taken by Trump can fall under the rubric of the political science theory known as “Supersession,” which stipulates that changing circumstances and the passage of time are formative guidelines to the handling of international conflicts.

In his major address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC (April 27, 2016) as the Republican presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump outlined his “America First” foreign policy approach. In so doing, he stated his manifesto: “Unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength.”

More than two years into Trump’s tenure at the White House, his foreign policy continues to be subjected to harsh criticism and is frequently mocked as senseless and impulsive. The term “chaos” appears in many contexts to describe his administration, and the suggestion is often made that there is no “adult in the room.” The prevailing claim is that the administration is pursuing a strategy that weakens and isolates the US and is withdrawing from its role as a global leader while at the same time distancing potential allies and partners instead of working with them. Obama administration veterans label Trump’s foreign policy as a “Grand Strategic Train Wreck.”

Nevertheless, it appears that Trump has overcome both internal obstruction and external pressure to deliver a series of achievements: North Korea’s Kim Jong-un hasn’t launched a rocket since November 28, 2017; America’s NATO allies are finally starting to deliver on their obligations to increase defense spending toward the 2% of GDP target; Mexico has apparently come to terms on long-overdue NAFTA reforms; the US has stayed out of the Arab world’s interminable wars; and the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem in May 2018 without sparking a Palestinian “intifada,” as Trump’s opponents warned it would.

The key to understanding Trump’s achievements is to recognize his embrace of a genuine political approach. This course is encapsulated in a political science theory known as “Supersession,” originally developed by Prof. Jeremy Waldron of the New York University School of Law. This theory highlights the principle of “changing circumstances” rather than “rights-based” and “transitional justice” concepts. In other words, the need to rectify supposed historical injustices is superseded by the needs, claims, and desires of a society today. In a nutshell: the policymaker looks forward, not backward.

According to Prof. Tamar Meisels of Tel-Aviv University, writing in her book Territorial Rights (2006), “The basic logic of Waldron’s Supersession argument, regarding the inevitable implications of a change in circumstances to the justice of present day arrangements, seems undeniable. On the whole, the Supersession Thesis is irresistibly convincing.”

President Trump’s foreign policy employs the Supersession argument by highlighting the passage of time and changing circumstances as decisive factors. The realities on the ground can be considered guidelines that affect US international policy.

For example, Trump’s decision regarding the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as well as the recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, could suggest the practical ratification of current circumstances as a result of the passage of time.

The reshaping of US policy toward the Palestinian “refugees,” as manifested in the cutting of financial support to UNRWA by over $300 million and the reduction of funding to the Palestinian Authority by $200 million, is mainly related to Trump’s conclusion that the inflated refugee problem is based on a false narrative.

A parallel logic could explain Trump’s open antagonism toward international organs such as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council), and the ICC (International Criminal Court, to which the US is not a state party). Trump’s reasoning suggests that he considers these international bodies anachronistic due to their anti-American and anti-Israeli majorities, which are composed of Muslim and third-world countries. Though it is not politically correct to distrust the objectivity of international organizations, Trump has exhibited no hesitation in directly confronting fundamental norms of the world’s order.

Trump’s parameters in foreign policy making could indicate a potential direction vis-à-vis ongoing conflicts, with an emphasis on:

The “Deal of the Century,” which is intended to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is probable that the US will stick to the principle of the passage of time and the changing of circumstances on the ground. This would entail authorizing Israel to implement its sovereignty in major parts of the West Bank that are virtually empty of Palestinian population and denouncing the principle of establishing a Palestinian State on that piece of land.

The North Korean nuclear arsenal. Because the ambitious goal of denuclearizing Pyongyang seems unrealistic (unless an all-out war is fought), and recognizing the change of circumstances, the probability of a fallback position in this area is high. We might see the modus operandi of a “freezing” mechanism to enable a strict inspection of North Korean nuclear and SSMs arsenals.

The conflict in South China Sea. Though official US policy firmly denounces China’s continuous blunt efforts to expand its military deployment in the area, mainly on artificial islands, it appears that Trump’s approach to this conflict is less tough than that of Obama. There may be an emerging US readiness to acknowledge the fait accompli and cultivate an unofficial modus vivendi to avoid undesired military escalation in that part of the world.

US foreign policy under President Trump is far from chaotic. It is non-conformist, and a good way off from the misguided political correctness of the Obama administration.

(Ph.D. Jinan University, China). Specializes in Middle Eastern and international affairs. Served for 26 years in IDF military intelligence in several senior assignments, including Head of the Review Department. Served for 3 years in the Prime Minister’s office and Ministry of Defense, and fulfilled a diplomatic mission in the Far East.

Featured Articles

Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.

North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.